Olie Linsdell dominates Classic TT - on a Paton

Go to page

At risk of being told I've hijacked this thread - re acotrel's declared love for Molnar Manx's, Walmsley G50's and BSA's I just wonder where he sit's with the 4 valve 'Manx norton' that molnar had at the Manx GP, and which, despite a load of money being thrown at it, development and rider wise, was comprehensively beaten by the apparently despised Enfield.
The performance of the Enfield would seem even more incredible for it was achieved, not by it's regular rider Olie Linsdell , but by an irish rider, Ian Lougher, who had never been on the machine before. And while we are hijacking the thread - what exactly is stopping someone from lapping the island at 100 mph on a Goldie, surely a much better starting point for a suitable engine development project than the Enfield?

I would suspect that anyone that could make an Enfield that fast could probably work their magic touch on anything to make it as fast. ?
It probably 'just' takes time and a methodical passion for getting it developed.
Obviously has sorted out all the weaknesses, and tweaked all the bits to give the required performance.
Someone give that man a Goldie, and a book of blank checks, and see what happens.... ??

Someone at club night a few years ago mentioned that Enfields back in the 1960s had some very fast big head scrambles bikes.
Someone turned up at some local races with such a factory bike, and absolutely blitzed all the locals - goldies, ariels, G80CS's, etc.
When they looked at the bike after, to see what is was that was so fast and uncatchable, they couldn't even see what the difference was.
The man that rode it said he didn't get to see inside it, was none the wiser.
So obviously the factory had a few tricks up their sleeve....

I would suspect that anyone that could make an Enfield that fast could probably work their magic touch on anything to make it as fast. ?
It probably 'just' takes time and a methodical passion for getting it developed.
Obviously has sorted out all the weaknesses, and tweaked all the bits to give the required performance.
Someone give that man a Goldie, and a book of blank checks, and see what happens.... ??

Someone at club night a few years ago mentioned that Enfields back in the 1960s had some very fast big head scrambles bikes.
Someone turned up at some local races with such a factory bike, and absolutely blitzed all the locals - goldies, ariels, G80CS's, etc.
When they looked at the bike after, to see what is was that was so fast and uncatchable, they couldn't even see what the difference was.
The man that rode it said he didn't get to see inside it, was none the wiser.
So obviously the factory had a few tricks up their sleeve....

There is already a guy (in fact a couple) building Goldie engines that in the right hands could lap the IoM faster than the fastest Goldie time recorded so far, and probably up there with that Enfield. But they were not at the event with professional riders on board which that bike was. Look for Goldie specialist Dave Pearson, regular rider Clive Ling and the evergreen John Cronshaw who has been winning on Goldies since before I first started racing in '75......

Also look at the performances of young Alex Sinclair on a Goldie....someone who may well do the lap times in the future, this year in his second visit to the IoM....

But also make no mistake that Steve Linsdell's machine preparation and development skills (and riding skills) have been applied just as successfully with other bikes.....Enfields and a desire to be different are just his overiding personal passion that got him into the sport in the first place....

For a while Royal Enfield singles dominated the flat-track racing at Ascot, they were built up by Shell Thuett and ridden by Eliott Shultz if my spelling is right.

The Royal Enfield Fury engine which they were based on had a special limited production cylinder head with the rocker box cast integrally. Shell's Enfield dirt trackers had Goldstar parts in the bottom end. They could get them to turn faster than Goldstars by turning the front fork sliders around backwards!

If someone gets around the IOM on a Goldstar or Royal Enfield running a standard Goldstar or Enfield frame with an engine built with massaged standard production parts then I will give them some credit, but when someone stuffs an engine that is all modern parts into a Manx or Seeley etc. frame and then they have really not done anything with a Goldstar or Royal Enfield at all have they?

The guys in the mid-50s used to get close to 90mph laps in the Clubman TT with a Goldie, for some reason now no one seems to be able to do anything using real BSA parts, or 50s spec parts at all.

As far as Norton 88s go, if anyone is running one that has other than the standard bore and stroke, then it is not a Norton 88, as the bore and stroke is all that defined an 88, a 99, 650ss or Atlas. If you are running a Norton 500 with a 68 or 73 or 77mm bore, then you are running a de-stroked 650ss or Commando, not an Norton 88.

So do you want to experience what racers did in the classic era, do you want to preserve history and put it on display for others to see? If it is not vintage or historical then what is it? Get a cbr600.

The 500 Domiracer was discussed on this forum further back; there was a lot of information there.
You are unlikely to emulate the 1961 Norton works racer build at the Bracestreet shop by D. Helne, this had chrome plated Alloy barrels, a single Dykes piston ring, eccentric rockers e.t.c.

If someone can make a pushrod Enfield lap the IoM at 133 mph, then with enough determination anything is possible ??
You can buy alloy cylinders for dommies, and any good shop can plate the bores.
Manx pistons had only a single ring, and omega supply suitable pistons to suit anything ?
etc etc.
Depending on the depth of your pockets, and how competitive you want to make an old engine....

Sir Eddy on this board, and his son, have a highly modded dommie enfine for a LSR attempts.
Whether the performance will match, we watch with hope and interest !

Re; “If someone can make a pushrod Enfield lap the IoM at 133 mph, then with enough determination anything is possible ??”
Please note this bike was a D. O.H.C. PATON :!: :!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileaton.jpg

Re; “You can buy alloy cylinders for Dommies, and any good shop can plate the bores”
As far as I am aware, you can get 750 Commando alloy barrels so could you please tell us where we can get a 8 fin 66mm bore 500 twin alloy barrels :?: :?:

For a while Royal Enfield singles dominated the flat-track racing at Ascot, they were built up by Shell Thuett and ridden by Eliott Shultz if my spelling is right.

The Royal Enfield Fury engine which they were based on had a special limited production cylinder head with the rocker box cast integrally. Shell's Enfield dirt trackers had Goldstar parts in the bottom end. They could get them to turn faster than Goldstars by turning the front fork sliders around backwards!
If someone gets around the IOM on a Goldstar or Royal Enfield running a standard Goldstar or Enfield frame with an engine built with massaged standard production parts then I will give them some credit, but when someone stuffs an engine that is all modern parts into a Manx or Seeley etc. frame and then they have really not done anything with a Goldstar or Royal Enfield at all have they?
The guys in the mid-50s used to get close to 90mph laps in the Clubman TT with a Goldie, for some reason now no one seems to be able to do anything using real BSA parts, or 50s spec parts at all.
As far as Norton 88s go, if anyone is running one that has other than the standard bore and stroke, then it is not a Norton 88, as the bore and stroke is all that defined an 88, a 99, 650ss or Atlas. If you are running a Norton 500 with a 68 or 73 or 77mm bore, then you are running a de-stroked 650ss or Commando, not an Norton 88.
So do you want to experience what racers did in the classic era, do you want to preserve history and put it on display for others to see? If it is not vintage or historical then what is it? Get a cbr600.

Re; “ As far as Norton 88s go, if anyone is running one that has other than the standard bore and stroke, then it is not a Norton 88, as the bore and stroke is all that defined an 88, a 99, 650ss or Atlas. If you are running a Norton 500 with a 68 or 73 or 77mm bore, then you are running a de-stroked 650ss or Commando, not an Norton 88.”
By your definition then, Triumph used to race their 650 Bonneville’s in the, amongst other races in the production TT- these were bored out to the maximum of +.040 making them nearer what ? 680cc :!:

Also, If someone uses a 88 Dynamo crankcase with 500 crank & barrels bored out to +.040 the bottom end is still a 500, it doesn’t really come under the 600/650 engine , or does it :?:

Ian Lougher, a very experienced WELSH rider, 10 times TT winner, as well as many UGP/NW200 wins rode the Enfield, which went through the SPEED TRAP at 133mph, although he did lap at 107mph. His 4th place helped by leaderboard retirements.

As for Patons only ever racing against MVs etc, that is rubbish. I remember John Cooper (Matchless) beating Billie Nelson on Fred Hannahs Paton. Fred Stevens also rode it, and again, almost always against Manx's and G50s.

Ian Lougher, a very experienced WELSH rider, 10 times TT winner, as well as many UGP/NW200 wins rode the Enfield, which went through the SPEED TRAP at 133mph, although he did lap at 107mph. His 4th place helped by leaderboard retirements.

As for Patons only ever racing against MVs etc, that is rubbish. I remember John Cooper (Matchless) beating Billie Nelson on Fred Hannahs Paton. Fred Stevens also rode it, and again, almost always against Manx's and G50s.

As for Patons only ever racing against MVs etc, that is rubbish. I remember John Cooper (Matchless) beating Billie Nelson on Fred Hannahs Paton. Fred Stevens also rode it, and again, almost always against Manx's and G50s.

As far as Norton 88s go, if anyone is running one that has other than the standard bore and stroke, then it is not a Norton 88, as the bore and stroke is all that defined an 88, a 99, 650ss or Atlas. If you are running a Norton 500 with a 68 or 73 or 77mm bore, then you are running a de-stroked 650ss or Commando, not an Norton 88.

So do you want to experience what racers did in the classic era, do you want to preserve history and put it on display for others to see? If it is not vintage or historical then what is it? Get a cbr600.

Thanks for the Enfield racing info Ben.
And the usual drum-banging about history being stuck in one spot !

If just anyone could "stuff modern parts" in something and do 133 mph through the speedtrap, then show us what beng has done lately like this ?
Nortons played with the bore and stroke of manxs and various other engines, all over the place.
So to claim an engine HAS to be a certain b&s to be that engine is also just silly. ?
As we all know, and love, history doesn't stand still - classic racing doesn't HAVE to be stuck at a certain year in time either ?
If no-one had thought they could build a better mousetrap, then we'd still all be riding penny farthings ??!

Err yes, I may have inadvertantly poorly worded a previous reply, such that the Enfields 133 mph through the IoM speedtrap was suggested to be something else.
I have gone back and amended the wording of that, or it would be somewhat of a historical error.
Thanks for pointing that out folks...

It has been announced in ClassicBike (magazine) a couple of times that alloy cylinders for Nortons are available.
Can't recall the name, but the guy with glasses that was doing the alloy Triumph generator engine cylinders was doing Nortons ones.
I thought about a set for a 500 dommie, but they were quite pricey, at the time.

Rohan,
I'm confused by your comments.
I would say that the bore and stroke of an engine most certainly makes a difference. By your line of thinking, one could take a 350 Manx Norton, sleeve it to a 500 and still race it as a 350, since that's what it originally was? Is that your claim? Certainly makes no sense to me.

And as far as historical racing, it certainly is trapped in time. Even the AHRMA rule books have a cut off date. History continues to be made of course, as we progress thru time. But the history that was made after that cut off date, has no relevance at all to historical racing under the date rules set forth by whichever organization you want to reference.

There's this constant banging of the drum against beng, and even more so against the true history of Norton motorcycles and historical racing. I just don't get it. If people don't like these vintage bikes for what they are, then why like them at all. Why would anyone want to represent the history of a machine with all these modern parts and incorrect layouts? Any replica machine should be a faithful reproduction of the original. Where did this mind set come from that you can just keep progressing history? The mere concept of that idea, makes no sense at all.

The bottom line is that all the liberties people continue to take with building modern parts into a vintage bike and then entering it in a class that has a cut off date long before half it's parts even existed, is a sheer joke. And that's because all of the racing that takes place with these bikes, is historical. There's no modern / progressive racing organization that these bikes could ever compete in. So progressing this history past it's point in time, yet not entering the bike into a modern relevant racing class, simply makes no sense.

I'm sure that my post will simply fuel the conversation further. Always a good time.

The operative word here was bore - AND - stroke.
Nortons had quite a few versions of say a 500cc Manx, when you tot them all up.
Prewar was 79x100 and 79.62x100 and postwar 79.62x100 and 86x85.6 and 90xsomething and 94xsomethingelse.
And probably a few more experimental versions ?

Otherwise, you could end up with a jumbo manx.
Like this early racing monster - not necessarily with any Norton connections.

beng makes assumptions about BSA Goldies and the Linsdell Enfield without knowing what he's talking about. All modern parts indeed - how about the 1965 Enfield crankcases for starters ? At last years Manx GP, Fred Walmsley explained away one of his G50 engine failures by saying the crank cases were seven years old. Enfield must have had some pretty good engineers in their day to make things that would last so long.